The evaluation cycles for faculty on different appointments (first-year, second/third-year, and senior faculty appointments) are delineated below. A calendar of annual evaluation activities can be found in Appendix A. In Appendix B a plan for transitioning colleges and faculty from the previous faculty evaluation system to the new Faculty Development and Evaluation System can be found.

Probationary faculty members will be evaluated in both the fall and spring semesters of their first one-year appointment. For probationary teaching faculty members who are in their first one-year appointment, the summative rating will be assigned each semester, the second-semester evaluation to be assigned by March 15thof their first year of employment.

Individuals working under their second-year or third-year appointment will receive summative ratings by March 15th for work performed during the previous calendar year (January-December).

Senior faculty members (those beyond the first three continuous appointment years, whether on one-year or multi-year appointments) will receive their summative ratings by December 15th of the last year of the appointment. Evaluations will encompass all work performed during each of the calendar years (January-December) of the appointment.

For all years, including the final year of a multi-year appointment, the faculty member will work with the dean/supervisor to develop individual Annual Performance and Professional Development Objectives.

During the intervening years of a multi-year appointment, faculty members will be deemed to have met expectations if their previous rating was “Meets Expectations.” Therefore, they will be eligible to participate in the college Reward and Recognition plan—unless they overtly fail to maintain acceptable college standards, including satisfactory performance on Annual Performance and Professional Development Objectives, as documented by the dean/supervisor.

Teaching faculty members will receive a summative evaluation rating of either “Meets Expectations” or “Does Not Meet Expectations” at the conclusion of the evaluation cycle appropriate to their appointment term as described in the Evaluation Schedule above and in Appendix A.

In order to receive a summative evaluative rating of “Meets Expectations,” each teaching faculty member is expected to demonstrate mastery of a significant majority of the individual criteria and satisfactory progress toward mastery of those criteria where improvement is needed for each of the four evaluation domains: Teaching, Scholarly and Creative Engagement, Institutional Responsibility, and Service (see Tables 1.1 and 1.2). The evaluation will include all aspects of the teaching faculty job description as well as temporary assigned administrative/professional duties, whether or not release time was granted. While percentages are given in Table 1 for the weighting of each of the four domains, the Model Plan uses a holistic, qualitative approach to evaluation. Therefore, the weights express the relative importance of each domain; they do not represent a numerical approach to evaluation.

All faculty will be held to the minimum weights described below, except in cases where the faculty member is reassigned for more than 50% of their teaching load to other administrative/professional duties for a time period not to exceed two years.

Faculty with more than 50% of normal teaching load reassigned to other administrative/professional duties will consult with their dean/supervisor to adjust the relative domain weights as necessary with the following stipulations: (1) teaching should always comprise the maximum percentage weighting allowed by the reduction in teaching duties (i.e. if the faculty member is teaching 40% of a regular load, teaching must be weighted at 40%), and (2) the supervisor will make the final determination of the domain weights and the expectations in each domain that the faculty member will be held to.

Activities specifically associated with the faculty member’s formally recognized area of expertise.

Service

Quality participation and commitment to students, college and/or community organizations. Participation in these activities is not done for extra compensation, but is an expectation of one’s activities as a professional educator. Service activities are divided into three categories:

1) College Representation: Service activities that involve a direct connection between the faculty member who engages in the specific activity and his/her position at the college.

2) College Citizenship: Service activities that are in support of college or VCCS initiatives in which the participant is not in a leadership role for the activity.

3) Community Citizenship: Service activities that are indirectin which the employee is acting as a community resident who also happens to be a college employee.

Institutional Responsibility

Performing assigned or presumed duties according to one's role at the college. These activities support and advance both the mission of the VCCS and the college to enhance the effective functioning of the college—including the business processes (i.e. advising students, adherence to college and VCCS policy, collegiality, administrative duties, departmental supervision or assigned college community leadership duties, additional duties as assigned). If an activity does not otherwise fit into Teaching, Scholarly and Creative Engagement, or Service, and the activity is job related, then it should be counted in the Institutional Responsibility domain.

The criteria used for determining the rating of “Meets Expectations” for each domain component are included in the Faculty Evaluation Forms: Appendix C (Probationary First-Year Appointment), Appendix D (Second/Third-Year Appointment), and Appendix E (Senior Faculty Appointments).

The three required data source categories of self-evaluation, student ratings, and supervisor evaluation will be utilized to contribute to the summative rating for each domain as shown in Table 2. The burden of providing documentation to support a summative rating of “Meets Expectations” rests on the faculty member. The dean/supervisor will utilize all available data and evidence to prepare a narrative report that supports the assignment of each individual domain rating used in the determination of the summative rating of “Meets Expectations” or “Does Not Meet Expectations.”

Table 2

Required data sources that contribute to domain summative ratings

DOMAIN

DATA SOURCE

Teaching

Self-Evaluation

Student Ratings

Supervisor Evaluation

Scholarly and Creative Engagement

Self-Evaluation

Supervisor Evaluation

Service

Self-Evaluation

Supervisor Evaluation

Institutional Responsibility

Self-Evaluation

Supervisor Evaluation

Self-evaluation

Faculty members shall prepare and submit a written report that includes a personal assessment of their performance in each of the required domain categories from Table 1 (including student outcomes and/or written statements provided to the faculty member that are pertinent to the faculty member’s teaching self-rating). This report should align with the expectations detailed in the Faculty Evaluation Form (Appendix C, D, or E, as appropriate to the faculty member’s appointment status) and should also include.

A professional and college activities report that is detailed enough to support the self- assignment of individual ratings of either “Meets Expectations” or “Does Not Meet Expectations” for each of the four domains (Teaching, Scholarly and Creative Engagement, Institutional Responsibility, and Service)

A review of goals met/unmet from each Annual Performance and Professional Development Objective (see the Model Plan section of this name) pertinent to the current evaluation cycle (i.e. since the last full evaluation process)

Any other factors as appropriate (e.g. reassigned time, temporary duties, or additional administrative or professional duties).

Student ratings

Students in all class sections in all semesters will be given the opportunity to complete Student Ratings of Instruction. Student Rating of Instruction responses from all class sections taught by the faculty member each semester (Appendix F) will be summarized by the dean/supervisor in a report, with attachments as necessary to support the report, and will be taken into account when determining the summative evaluation rating. When available and pertinent to the faculty member’s performance, written statements from students provided to the faculty member and/or the dean/supervisor should also be included in the faculty member’s self-evaluation and/or the supervisor’s evaluation as appropriate.

Supervisor evaluation

The dean/supervisor will use available evidence from the faculty member’s self-evaluation, student data, and the supervisor’s own assessment of the faculty member’s performance to evaluate each individual domain on the appropriate Faculty Evaluation Form (Appendix C, D, or E, as appropriate to the faculty member’s appointment status). In addition to the data sources detailed above, the supervisor will also incorporate the following information:

An assessment of the faculty member’s progress in meeting goals set in the Annual Performance and Professional Development Objectives (see the Model Plan section of this name) pertinent to the current evaluation cycle (i.e. since the last full evaluation process).

Each semester for faculty under a one-semester or under a probationary, first-year appointment

Once per year for faculty under any other one-year (non-probationary) appointment

Once within the final three (3) semesters of a multi-year appointment

An independent assessment of the faculty member’s adherence to college policies.

Sources of evidence related to the faculty member’s performance of any other assigned duties as appropriate (e.g. reassigned time, temporary duties, or additional administrative or professional duties).

The dean/supervisor will determine each faculty member’s summative rating of “Meets Expectations” or “Does Not Meet Expectations” utilizing a preponderance of evidence from all of the above data sources. In order to receive a summative evaluative rating of “Meets Expectations,” each teaching faculty member is expected to demonstrate mastery of a significant majority of the individual criteria and satisfactory progress toward mastery of those criteria where improvement is needed for each of the four evaluation domains. The faculty member must achieve a “Meets Expectations” rating in each of the four domains to receive a summative rating of “Meets Expectations.”

Following completion of the summative evaluation process, the dean/supervisor will schedule a meeting with each faculty member to discuss the summative rating and the implications for continued employment as specified in VCCS Policy 3.6.

Evaluation summary meetings for faculty members in the first three appointment years will be scheduled in advance of the March 15th deadline for non-reappointment.

Evaluation summary meetings for senior faculty members (those beyond the first three continuous appointment years, whether on one-year or multi-year appointments) will be scheduled in advance of the January 15th deadline for non-reappointment.

Faculty members who receive a “Meet Expectations” summative rating will be eligible to receive a one-year or multi-year appointment, subject to other provisions of the appointment process as defined in VCCS Policy sections 3.4 and 3.6. Reappointed faculty will work with the dean/supervisor to develop Annual Performance and Professional Development Objectives (see the Model Plan section of this name) for the next year. The Annual Performance and Professional Development Objectives will include specific projects, goals, and anticipated outcomes/deliverables within one or more of the four domains of Teaching, Scholarly and Creative Engagement, Institutional Responsibility, and Service.

Faculty members who meet all of the other eligibility requirements of VCCS Policy 3.7 must receive a “Meets Expectations” rating to be considered for promotion.

Faculty members who achieve a “Meets Expectations” rating are also eligible to participate in the college’s Reward and Recognition Plan (see the Model Plan section of this name). However, probationary first-year faculty members are only eligible to participate in the Recognition program—they are not eligible to receive a Reward.

Depending on a faculty member’s appointment status, a rating of “Does Not Meet Expectations” has differing implications as detailed in VCCS Policy 3.6.

First-year faculty who receive a “Does Not Meet Expectations” rating in either semester will not be reappointed for the following year. They shall continue to teach or be reassigned at the discretion of the president for the spring semester but must be notified by March 15th that they will not be reappointed for the following academic year.

Second and third-year faculty who receive a “Does Not Meet Expectations” rating will not be reappointed for the following year and must be notified of that fact by March 15th.

Senior faculty (those beyond the first three continuous appointment years, whether they are on a multi-year appointment or on a one-year appointment by choice or by action of the president based, in part, on a previous “Does Not Meet Expectations” rating) who receive a “Does Not Meet Expectations” rating will have their evaluation documents further reviewed by the Ad Hoc Appointment Advisory Committee, consistent with policy 3.4.0.4. The president will consider the input of the dean/supervisor, the input of the supervising vice president, and the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Appointment Advisory Committee when determining whether to non-reappoint or to grant a one-year or a multi-year appointment.

Senior faculty who receive a “Does Not Meet Expectations” rating and are reappointed will participate in the setting and assessment of Performance and Professional Development Objectives during each semester of the appointment. The supervisor will take primary responsibility for setting these objectives, which should focus on areas of deficiency in the faculty member’s performance.

Teaching faculty may appeal their evaluation through the Faculty Grievance Procedure; however, appeals reaching Level III of the Faculty Grievance Procedure must be heard by peers through an Ad Hoc Hearing Committee. Throughout the appeals process, it will be incumbent upon the dean/supervisor to provide documentary evidence for the evaluation given to the faculty member.